Episode 2309 Scott Adams: CWSA 12/01/23 The News Has A Pattern Lately. I'll Tell You What It Means
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Visual Persuasion, Matt Gaetz, Facebook, Disney, Judge Engoron, Judge Engoron's Wife, Montana TikTok Ban, AI Humor, Blackmail Style Government, Epstein Flight Logs, Trump VP Selection, AG Paxton Sues Pfizer, Climate Scam, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, DeSantis Newsom Debate, J6 Deposition Videos, Chris Cuomo, Ukraine War, Mehdi Hasan, Israel Hamas War, Bari Weiss Free Press, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to another highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because it includes both of those things.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to a level which nobody can even imagine with their greatest imagination.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Oh yeah.
Savor it.
Savor it!
Well, happy December.
I'd like to start with a human interest story about my garbage.
Now you say to yourself, Scott, how interesting could a story about your garbage be?
Well, not very, but I'm going to tell you anyway.
So I have a garbage anxiety, which the people who watch me live stream on my man cave know.
So there's a, on Wednesday night, I have to take my four garbage cans, you know, two of them are from outdoor waste and recycling and blah blah.
So there's four of them, and I've got this long hill of a driveway, so it's kind of a lot of work.
Now, I have anxiety about forgetting to do it, because by Wednesday night, you know, by the time it's after five o'clock in the evening, you know, I start really early, sometimes three or four in the morning.
So, you know, that's the end of my day, basically.
So I often forget.
So I forgot last week or I got confused because of the holiday.
So I got, I had two weeks full of garbage in my garbage cans.
Now, the locals platform reacts to my hand gestures and when I said two, it read peace sign and balloons went off.
So that's fun.
You can't see that, but if you could, you'd think it was funny.
Anyway, so I've got two weeks full of garbage in a one-week can.
It's packed to the top.
But I noticed that I had, you know, two garbage cans in case I have these big days of garbage that happen sometimes.
And both of them were, like, one was half full and the other was full.
So I reached down by hand and took out these old gnarly garbages and stuffed them into one so that I'd have, you know, one less trip down the driveway.
So now I've got garbage that's so heavy I can almost not drag them downhill.
They're so heavy.
Well over 100 pounds.
And there are two of them, but I get them down there.
And it was maybe close to seven o'clock at night.
And I had a really hard day, worked really hard, got up really early, been working all day.
And my body was really sore.
And I thought, you know what?
I'm going to do something I never get to do.
I'm feeling good because my work's done.
My garbage is up to the street.
I don't have anything that I have to do the rest of the night.
I'm going to draw myself a hot bath.
When was the last time you had time to do that?
Like, the most decadent thing you could possibly do as an adult.
As an adult, when do you have time to take a bath?
You know, just sit in hot water and have nothing else to do.
But this was the first time I could think of Probably in a year, where I just legitimately, I was done with all of my work, and especially done with my garbage.
The best part.
I could get that out of my mind.
So I go to fill my bathtub, gonna put some Epsom salt in there and really rest my muscles.
And then I get a message.
Bing!
Oh, it's my next door neighbor.
Your garbage cans have been hit by a car.
Your garbage is strewn all over the street.
Now, do you ever think that the universe is just messing with you?
This was actually one of my biggest irrational concerns, is remembering to put my garbage out.
And of all the times that I put my garbage out, So I've been in this house, I don't know, 15 years or something.
So in 15 years of putting the garbage out, I'm the only one who does it every night.
Only once, only once in all those years has it been the most packed that the garbage has ever been packed.
Only once.
And I actually got security cameras, I won't be more specific, but I got a good picture of the car taking them out.
It didn't stop.
Imagine driving at full speed, hitting two objects that are 100 pounds apiece, knocking them all over the street, and continuing on.
Yeah, probably drunk.
Probably drunk.
Maybe drunk, or maybe there were two drivers and one of them was having a better time than the other, if you know what I mean.
Like, I like to think of it in a positive way.
So that was my evening.
Let's get on to other things.
Here's one of my topics, visual persuasion.
And as I've told you, visual persuasion includes somebody talking and describing something that you imagine visually.
So here's Matt Gaetz using amazing visual persuasion talking about the potential expulsion of George Santos from Congress for Whatever behaviors that are boring and I don't care about.
But Matt Gaetz says, whatever Mr. Santos did with Botox or OnlyFans is far less concerning to me than the indictment against Senator Menendez, wait for it, who's holding gold bars from Egypt while he's still getting classified briefings.
Now I think he actually went on to say that the gold bars actually had Arabic on them.
He had gold bars with Arabic writing from Egypt and he's still doing his job.
One of the most critical, confidential jobs in all of the world.
He's still on the job.
But boy, we gotta get rid of this George Santos guy because he's told some lies and apparently he may have used some Botox and he looked at porn once.
So gotta get rid of that guy.
Anyway, the visual persuasion of the gold bars with Arabic on them from Egypt, that is really, really good public speaking.
If you don't catch how good that is, just always look for the visual.
This is what Trump does.
He doesn't say, we need border security.
He says, build the wall, because then you imagine the wall.
Good technique.
So you know, Twitter's coming under all this great scrutiny for what people are claiming is bad people on there being matched, or let's say content being paired that shouldn't be paired and all that.
But what do you think is happening over at Facebook?
So Facebook is being accused of having too much, I don't even want to say the word, Well, let's just say if you're not over 18, you know what I mean.
So basically, content of people who are not adults that should not even be legal, which is paired with advertisements and stuff and fed to kids and all kinds of damn things.
And then other people are saying that there's a Palestinian group accusing MEDA, the parent company, of unfairly moderating speech Because of the Israel-Hamas situation.
And I think to myself, is it my imagination or is everything about Facebook feeling old and a date?
Like Facebook doesn't even feel relevant to anything.
I know it must be.
I mean, it's gigantic.
But in my life, it doesn't have any relevance at all.
The only time I look Is, you know, once every several months I want to maybe check on and see what people are up to.
That's it.
Like, I never interact.
I never comment.
It just has no appeal at all.
I imagine if you get kids or something, you know, young kids maybe, or you like to show off your vacations, maybe it's better for that.
But Facebook, in 2023, almost 2024, feels like a dinosaur.
Whereas the X platform is still so edgy that we're still talking about what it is.
We can't even decide what it is.
It's changing so quickly, and there's so much going on.
The X always seems new.
So everything about X feels fresh and new.
It's about what's happening today, and it's big things that I care about.
And Facebook is tiny little things that you shouldn't even see, like what somebody ate on vacation.
And just bullshit, really.
I have no idea how Facebook could be a viable product going forward.
Now, I do get Instagram and I get WhatsApp, so they have assets that are valuable.
I just don't get the core business at all.
Anyway, people are cancelling Disney Plus and Hulu, which is owned by Disney, after the dust-up between Elon Musk and his advertisers, including Disney.
And I wonder, do you think that Bob Iger knows that Disney doesn't have any modern and good products?
It's rare to see a company that is that completely fucked.
Completely.
So they own ABC News, right?
Do I have that right?
Disney owns ABC News?
But television news is just the most ridiculous dinosaur in the world.
So I wouldn't want to own ABC News or ABC.
I wouldn't want to own network news.
But I also wouldn't want to own a theme park In which you have to stand for long periods of time for a brief thrill, when most of the kids have a smartphone in their hand, and they're looking at their phone, and they've got 700 bits of entertainment while they're waiting for your three minutes of going up and down.
Whoa!
Whoa!
I can't even imagine how a theme park could be in existence ten more years from now.
How does it even make sense?
I feel as though Yeah, maybe virtual reality or something.
There'll be something that is just more interesting.
But if I were making woke movies nobody wanted to see, with dying franchises that I'd mostly killed by my bad decisions about wokeness usually, there's nothing happening at Disney that looks good.
There's nothing happening that looks good.
I think Bob Iger's got a problem, the likes of which Only China can understand.
Only China.
We'll talk about that later.
Well, I'm loving this story about Trump's valuations and the trial about whether he overvalued his assets.
As you know, and Jonathan Turley's writing about this and tweeting about it, imagine that you're the judge and you've already ruled Keep in mind that the current process is to figure out what the penalty will be.
But the ruling is already made.
Trump is already guilty, according to this judge, of fraud for inflating his assets.
So now the question will be, how big is the penalty?
Including taking away their ability to operate their business.
At least in New York, I guess.
I mean serious like the biggest penalty you could ever imagine.
Now the essence of it is that he did something bad so that the banks were on the other side of that badness.
But then the bank itself testified and they said and keep in mind this is in the penalty phase not the trial phase.
But in the penalty phase The testimony debunked the trial.
I don't know if I've ever seen that before.
Have you ever heard of that?
Here's what I mean.
So the trial was that Trump did a bad thing by overvaluating assets, and that's fraud.
The bank said, and this is just me paraphrasing, right?
They didn't say this exactly.
The bank said, he was a great customer.
We would love to work with him again.
Again, I'm paraphrasing.
They didn't say it exactly, but the essence of it is yes.
Great customer.
He was a whale of a customer, the ones we seek out.
We made millions of dollars.
Would love to do that kind of business with him again.
And here's the punchline.
We never accept the borrower's word for their assets.
That is ordinary business.
To do our own investigation, which we of course did, and made our own decision about the value of the loan.
Apparently we made good decisions because they were always paid back on time and we made a profit.
Would love to do it again.
That's in the penalty phase.
Here's a question for you.
Why wasn't that in the trial?
Probably because it didn't matter.
Probably because the judge said, it doesn't matter what the opinion of the bank is.
If you lied, you lied.
That would be fraud.
I assume it's something like that.
Because isn't the most critical part of understanding what he did, is what the other party to the transaction was thinking about it.
What the other party was thinking about it and how they turned out is maybe not the most important thing, but it's pretty close.
Well, maybe this is the most important thing.
The fact that there's no victim.
Not only is there no victim, but the victim would love to have it happen again.
Like, please, can you victimize me again, Mr. Trump?
And by the way, if everything works out for you, we'd love to do business with you again.
Imagine being that judge.
Just imagine how faced that judge is right now.
That has to be the most embarrassing judicial situation I've ever heard of.
Have you ever heard of a judge being embarrassed like that?
That is super embarrassing.
Wow.
And I would like to go further.
Now, I've already bragged that because I was a banker, and specifically I was a loan officer, I was a guy who approved loans to certain kinds of businesses.
And I told you, early on in this process, that the bank isn't going to complain.
Because the bank always does their own checking.
No exceptions.
You can't be a lender and sometimes take their word for it, That's not a thing.
There is no loan ever, ever anywhere, in a traditional bank, ever, not once, where the lender said, you know what?
You look like an honest guy.
I'm going to take your word for that.
Literally never.
Now a venture capitalist might.
If you're a venture capitalist, or especially an angel, more an angel than a venture capitalist, because venture capitalists are practically bankers.
But an angel might say, you know what?
I don't know exactly even what you're talking about, but you're such a good manager, I'll just take your word for it.
That does happen.
But not in a bank.
Not, not ever in a bank.
It just doesn't happen.
So, now the public knows that.
But here's the interesting question.
How many criminals do you believe, according to this judge, who says if you exaggerate or lie to your bank, you've committed a crime?
If you were to look at the Deutsche Bank loan files, how often would you find that the person asking for the loan had grossly exaggerated the value of one of their assets?
How often?
A lot.
And that's why the bankers were completely unconcerned because it's actually routine.
Completely normal.
And trust me, I'm not guessing.
I've looked at a lot of loans and the first thing you do is you take their estimate and you cut it by half.
That's just the most basic banking thing you do.
Everybody does it.
So isn't this a case of unequal justice?
So you've got, let's say you've got a filing cabinet full of loan, you know, loans.
Yeah, obviously it's digital, but just imagine it.
And in maybe two-thirds of those loans, the bank didn't believe the asset value.
And the bank was probably right.
Bank was right.
The asset value was overstated.
Are all those people going to be tried?
Are they all going to be put out of business by this judge?
How in the world, how in any world, could this stand a Supreme Court review?
Like, I'm not even a lawyer, or even close to a lawyer.
And to me it's obvious that this can't possibly get through any kind of, you know, higher court approval.
How could it?
How in the world, do you think the Supreme Court is going to say, yes, the banker and Trump acted in the most routine way that anybody acts, exactly like two-thirds of their other lenders, or their other customers, just like two-thirds of all the customers.
But one of them is going to go to jail, or one of them is going to lose their business and not go to jail.
How does that work?
There's not any chance that this can hold up.
This is so political.
This judge is... How embarrassing.
And as you know, Laura Loomer discovered that the judge's wife was posting, you know, F Trump memes and showing him with a shaved head in a prison suit long before the trial.
How in the world does this pass any kind of Supreme Court review?
I mean, that alone Well, I don't know how the Supreme Court works on that.
But if the Supreme Court knew that his wife was, you know, unambiguously biased against him, how in the world does the Supreme Court say, yes, justice was served there?
How in the world?
It's absurd.
And Trump posted about the judge's wife, posting that stuff on Truth Social.
All right.
All right.
In 2018, my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose.
And I publicly vowed that I would get even with China.
Cartel is too.
And I told you in 2018 I was going to persuade the world that China was unsafe to do business.
Because I believed it was unsafe to do business, but I didn't think people could see it the way I saw it.
So I started saying that over and over and over again.
The news today from the Wall Street Journal is that five years later, China is unsafe for business.
And I'll bet you every single company that invested in China, a long term investment in 2018, is kind of unhappy that that happened.
So do you think, how was my prediction?
So I made a prediction about the trial.
You know, the banking trial with Trump?
That was right.
And I didn't hear anyone else make that argument, did you?
Did you hear anyone else in the public domain make that argument that the bankers would say there's no problem here?
I didn't hear it.
I think I was the only one.
Now, it's not because I'm smart.
It's because I was a banker.
I always teach you that having a good talent stack, you know, a combination of talents, gives you extra vision on things.
I happen to be a person who talks about the news every day.
But by luck, I was also a lending officer.
So I could see this before people could see it.
It was obvious.
Let's take another one.
Montana tried to ban TikTok in their state.
But of course, a U.S.
District Judge has blocked the ban.
So it will not be banned.
What did Montana do wrong?
And does it look like something I could have warned them about?
If they had listened to me, would they have made this mistake?
Well, let me tell you what they got wrong.
The reason that Montana gave is data security.
Their argument for banning it was not the influence part, which is the actual risk.
It was over data security.
And the judge just said, you know, they say they can handle the data security.
It's kind of an overreach.
Free speech.
Montana totally botched this.
They should have gone for the influence because it can be demonstrated quite easily that China controls Chinese companies and the Chinese company has a heat button and even at this moment there's great concern that they may have pushed the heat button on the Gaza situation.
And it's not even legal in China.
I mean, the argument was so good, so easy, and instead they went for the weakest, dumbest diversion.
That it's really about the data security.
Now, the data security is not nothing, but it's the least important part of the story, by far.
So, if Montana had followed my advice, would they do better?
Well, they couldn't do worse.
At least, they would have had a chance of doing better.
All right, here's my next prediction.
Since I'm so good at predicting, let me tell you what's going to happen with AI and movies.
And everybody else's opinion is wrong.
Mine is right.
It goes like this.
So I guess Ridley Scott was saying, you know, AI would just, you know, change everything.
And he probably thinks that everybody will lose their jobs.
I think not.
I think what's going to happen is all the same people who make movies, You know, you got your directors and producers and costumers and your actors and whatnot.
So you got dozens of trades that come together for it.
And here's what I think.
I think each of those entities will just use AI to do their part better.
Now, the obvious question is, why do you need the human?
You know, even if you imagine AI is not good enough yet, Will it not obviously be good enough, you know, very soon?
And I say, nope.
Because here's what you're missing.
If you're not a... This is what those telestat things again, right?
I had a good prediction about banking because I was in that job.
That's the only reason I had that visibility.
I'm also a creator.
Who writes and creates and does artistic things.
So I'm going to tell you that AI, when it comes to artistic things, has a disadvantage that humans have, and I don't know how AI would overcome it, just by getting smarter.
And it's this.
Humans have two brains, minimum.
They have several personalities going on in their head all the time.
But the two that matter to this conversation are somebody who's pitching an idea, this is you to yourself, you're pitching an idea to yourself, but you're also evaluating it instantly.
So you're the pitcher and the catcher.
You're the buyer, you're the seller and the buyer.
You're the artist and the art critic.
So everything you do, you instantly evaluate, but you do it based on this instrument, which is your physical body.
And it's the only one that matters.
Because having a physical body, which includes your brain, allows you to estimate what somebody else would enjoy.
And you can estimate it in real time in a zeitgeist, au courant way.
Those are my douchebag Words.
What that means is, something that's funny today, and I mean literally today, as in December 1st, 2023, won't be the same as what's funny in a month.
Do you get that?
They won't be the same.
What's funny in a month isn't the same as what's funny now.
The reason I can guess what's funny today It's because I have an instrument.
My body is my instrument.
I feel it.
I feel the zeitgeist.
The zeitgeist is the thing everybody's thinking, but maybe nobody's said it yet.
How in the world could AI know the zeitgeist when, by definition, it's the thing that people are thinking, but they haven't said?
AI learns from what people have said.
It literally is trained on things you said.
It is not trained on things you haven't said yet.
What's the difference between a good joke and a bad joke?
You know, let's say we're a dad joke.
Bad or dad joke.
The bad or dad jokes are based on, like, classical humor.
Things which, yeah, I get it.
You had the form of a joke.
It had an unexpected punchline.
It met the criteria of a joke.
Yeah, that's pretty good.
That's a good dad joke.
But, to tell a Chappelle joke.
I'll just use him as, you know, top of the game.
A Chappelle joke.
You think you see it coming.
And he says something that you were thinking kind of, but you'd never even put it into words.
Right.
Hey, I can't do that.
There's no way I can do that.
And I don't know how it ever could, because it can't solve the timing problem of having a human body that's instantly evaluating.
So, you know, people always ask, you know, Elon Musk, you know, what's going on in your head?
He says, you know, it's basically it's terrible.
There's just too much happening in there and you wouldn't want it if you could.
And I can tell you that in my own, my own creative world, you know, since my job is to create, on some days I create Twelve jokes in one day.
I might have one or two in a Dilbert comic.
I might write six different jokes in one of my Robots Read Nudes comics.
It's a daily comic just for the people on Locals.
And then I might make three jokes on the X-Platform.
And then I might be writing something separately that makes the jokes.
Do you know how hard it is to come up with twelve commercial-grade jokes a day?
It's crazy.
That's crazy level of productivity, artistically.
And the reason I can do it is that there's a hurricane going on in my head.
And my head is always pitching and criticizing.
Pitching, criticizing, criticizing.
It never stops.
I couldn't turn it off if I wanted to.
Right?
It's just always on.
So I don't know how you build an AI to do that.
An AI would have to put it out there in the real world and have people react to it.
But it wouldn't be able to start with the intuition of how you feel.
I start with the intuition of how I feel.
How does an A.I.
do that?
So, I don't know, I think everybody will have their own little A.I.
I think the costume, let's say the costume creator, if A.I.
created the costumes, you might say, wow, that's pretty good for A.I.
But a costume expert, a human, is going to know if it looks like an Academy Award winning costume.
The AI is just going to stop when it's good enough.
Okay, this is definitely a costume.
This fit all the criteria.
But the artist is going to push it a little further.
The artist is going to say, you know, This isn't what it really would look like in the real world but I'm just gonna tweak this a little bit so it's real but accentuated in a way and that's what makes it special.
AI can't do that.
Same with directing.
Let's take the simplest thing.
Let's take the simplest thing of editing.
You think, oh, but for sure my AI will do the editing for me.
No way!
You're going to need a human to tell it if it did it right, because they have the attention span that AI doesn't have.
All right.
Dick Durbin, according to Jesse Waters, either is covering up the motion to have a spina to get the Epstein flight logs, or maybe they're just too busy.
So the excuse is they didn't have time, but we'll see if it gets done today.
But do you think, does it seem weird to you that the Epstein flight logs are not public years after he's dead?
Yeah, makes you wonder.
Now, I've told you that when it comes to the government, they're guilty until proven innocent.
I would say at this point, the weight of evidence suggests that we have a blackmail-based government.
And maybe other countries as well.
Would you say that's a fair assessment of our current government?
That it is a blackmail?
Fundamentally, that's the operating system of the government, is blackmail.
Now, it only makes sense Because I've told you before, I can't see any situation where any company, any country, whether it's the United States or somewhere else, if you have a highly functional intelligence group within your country, eventually they will take over the leadership.
There's no way around it.
They're trained to do it.
They're the type of people who don't mind doing it.
Somebody's going to take a run at it and somebody will eventually succeed through blackmail.
So if you're a group that knows how to use blackmail and has no moral qualms about any of it, eventually they're going to run the country.
You just don't know if it happens on day one or day a thousand or day a million.
But eventually, there's no way it can go any other way.
And I would say that the same is probably true for Russia and China.
Probably.
But, do you know how I think they handle it in Russia and China?
That as soon as they get blackmailed, somebody kills them.
They just send somebody to kill them.
Like, even if you were the one who transmitted the message, like you sat in a room with Xi or Putin and said, you know what?
We found out some things about you.
You'd be dead before you hit the hallway.
And anybody who published it would be dead before they ate lunch.
So I think maybe in the totalitarian countries, they can just murder people until they get it done.
But I have this hypothesis that that would also cause China and Russia to have bad intelligence agencies.
On average, They probably have to kill all their good people because the good people would take over the country if they didn't kill him first.
So it's just a guess.
But I'll bet the Dunning-Kruger incompetence level of the Russian and Chinese intelligence is off the chart.
Because as soon as you've got a good operator in there, the leader would have to kill him.
Because otherwise that leader would kill them.
Basically, you just can't let somebody capable be in charge of your intelligence or else they'll take over the country.
Why wouldn't they?
Yeah, most of you would if you had the chance.
Yeah, so we know that Hoover was a blackmailer and why would it change?
I can't imagine it would change.
So I'm gonna assume that the government is guilty and that the Epstein logs probably are protecting somebody and that it's exactly what it looks like.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Epstein was a blackmailer for either our Intel or maybe Israel's or somebody else's.
Maybe he's probably working for more than one.
Anyway, there is a rampant speculation that if Trump is nominated, he will pick Tucker Carlson for his VP.
How many of you believe that?
Do you believe that Trump would pick Tucker Carlson for his VP?
I'm going to put the odds of that at zero.
Everybody on Locals is saying no.
Zero.
Because it would bring him more heat, not less.
Tucker has his own set of historically huge group of critics.
You don't bring that into your campaign.
Yeah, and Ben Carson is a ridiculous idea, honestly.
Yeah, there's no way he's gonna pick Ben Carson.
If he picks Ben Carson, that's like giving up.
I mean, Ben Carson is like, that's like taxidermy more than politics.
I mean, I need signs of life.
When somebody said that he was considering Ben Carson, I literally said to myself, he's still alive?
I thought he passed away.
Yeah, but then compare that to, you know, Vivek or DeSantis in the unlikely case.
Yeah, there are tons of people who would be better than Tucker.
Tucker would be awesome and fun, but it wouldn't get Trump elected.
All right.
Ken Paxton, AG of Texas, is suing Pfizer for misrepresenting COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and conspiring to censor The public discourse.
Now the beauty of this is not that you'll necessarily win on anything but that it will cause discovery.
So at least the legal system will cause Pfizer to tell us everything they know as much as possible.
So that could get interesting.
Now I saw a doctor say the other day that is now well understood.
I guess that's debatable that the vaccine did not work.
enough to make it worthwhile for any group except you know one group with comorbidities.
Does that does that match your opinion?
Would you say that there's still one population of people who are over a certain age and maybe had a comorbidity that they still believe maybe it was better it was more yet there's more good than bad maybe there's bad as well But is it true that the consensus is that everybody was worse off on average, except for this group of special people above a certain age and with comorbidities?
So I'm seeing lots of yeses, but also some nos.
So I guess you could argue what the consensus is, but my understanding is that the data still supports the idea that there was this specific group of people who benefited on average.
Isn't it amazing that we would disagree on this?
I don't know what's true, by the way.
I don't know what's true.
I do know that doctors say that there was one group that probably came out ahead.
Now, the reason I ask is because I'm in that group.
But I don't know if it's true.
Maybe we'll find out if it's true from this lawsuit.
But maybe.
Maybe.
And I just point out that most of the people who mock me because I got the first two shots.
I didn't get any boosters after that.
But I got the first two.
I'm in that group.
I'm dead in the center of the comorbidity because I have asthma, which at the time they thought was a comorbidity.
I'm not sure it is, but it can't be good to have a lung infection and asthma at the same time.
So, yeah, I don't know.
Just keep that in mind.
Keep an eye on it.
There's a Dutch political commentator, Eva Vlardingerbroek, and she's speaking out about the climate scam.
By the way, I remember climate change used to be the thing that was always trending on the old Twitter.
And now what trends is climate scam.
Climate scam is trending on at least my version of it almost every day.
So it feels like there's been like a sort of a quiet but major shift.
I mean when Bill Gates came out and said, yeah the temperature might go up but we'll handle it.
I felt like that was when it all fell apart.
At least the, you know, you're all going to die from climate change messaging.
I think it all fell apart.
And then when people realized that nuclear power, with all of its problems, was a probable solution to a lot of our problems, that took away a lot of the energy.
Because we have a solution, we just have to use it.
It takes all the energy out of it.
So I think that the The momentum, or let's say the natural swing of the pendulum, is that the scam will be trending more than, hey, everything's falling apart.
But I want to tell you what this Dutch political commentator, who I noticed follows me on X, so might be listening right now, and saying, get to it.
What are you going to say about me?
So in case you're listening, Eva.
So she said recently that Talking about the climate scam, so to speak.
Quote, the people behind this want to establish a one-world government, a new world order, in which they decide what we eat, when we eat, where we travel, when we travel, who we meet, and what we are allowed to spend our money on.
Basically, control over every single aspect of our lives.
They don't want us to eat foods that make us strong.
They want us to eat synthetic meat created by Bill Gates.
They want us to eat bugs.
They want us to drink soy milk so that we'll become weak and obedient, and we do as they say.
Does that sound... I want to get a reading of the audience.
Is that a good summary of reality?
How many would say, yeah, that sums it up.
I'm saying spot on.
Yes, yes, yes.
Kind of.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yes.
So that's right down the middle of what my audience believes, right?
I don't believe any of that.
I don't believe any of it.
Because the motivation part doesn't really make sense.
Like, I can't imagine there's somebody in a room saying, if only we can get them to eat bugs and soy milk.
Do you think there's really somebody having that conversation behind closed doors?
Really?
Let me try the really.
You think there's really somebody behind closed doors Who is planning to make humans eat bugs.
But hold on.
They're planning to make humans eat bugs, but not because they're planning to make money.
You're saying that it's more of a philosophy.
Really?
I don't believe any of that.
Here's why I don't believe it.
Let me give you a reason.
It's poor form to say I just don't believe it.
I need to make my case, wouldn't you say?
And I haven't made my case.
Here's my case.
Every bit of it can be explained by incompetence plus greed.
That's it.
Yeah.
You can explain all observations by incompetence plus somebody wants to make some money.
That's it.
Now on top of that, I do think there are some people who have some idea of how the world would be better.
Bill Gates being one of them.
But to imagine that Bill Gates, if he wanted to do all these things, do you think he would be conspiring with other people?
Or would Bill Gates want to be the one who's in charge?
So here's what's logically wrong with the thing.
It imagines that there are all these powerful people who are on the same page.
Have you ever met powerful people?
The one thing you can always say about powerful, successful people is they're never on the same page.
They're never on the same page.
The thing that makes them powerful and successful is the thing that says, I've got a better idea than you have.
And that never turns off.
Do you think Bill Gates is Bill Gates, and then when he gets in a meeting, you know, people will push him around and tell him what to think?
I don't think so.
So unless you can find out that there's one powerful person in charge and everybody else is bowing to them for some obvious reason, like fear or money or something, none of it makes sense.
There's no model of human behavior in which the most powerful people, by coincidence, are all part of this major scheme and they all have the same idea about how to run it.
Because the real world, anything you do that changes the real world, We'll create winners and losers.
Let's see if you agree with that first.
Any major change to the whole system of the world, which is what we're talking about, a major, major change, will destroy some people, completely put them out of business, but some other people might be able to rise.
So do you think that this big collection of bankers and Bill Gates and, you know, the The World Economic Forum and all these heads of industries.
Do you think that they all, you believe they're all working together in this big elite thing.
You believe all those elites think that they would individually be better off?
That's insane.
There's no real world analogy where you've ever seen that happen anywhere.
Even the government of every country.
Let me take the simplest example.
Pick any country that's a democracy.
Well, not even a democracy.
Pick any country, look at their elected leaders, and you tell me.
All on the same page?
Why doesn't Congress of the United States collude so that everyone in Congress comes off good and maybe at the expense of the rest of the public?
But why don't they do that?
Why are they against each other and fighting like crazy?
Even Republicans fight Republicans, Democrats fight Democrats.
Why?
But you believe that although every example in the history of humanity, every example The powerful people are actually opposed to each other.
Every time.
But this is the first exception.
And it's also the biggest thing ever.
And that all the elites are kind of on the same page.
If we can get them to eat bugs, they'll buy more oil.
Or whatever it is.
If we can get them to eat bugs, then we'll be able to raise their taxes.
If we can get them to have enough soy, they won't My own military won't be able to fight?
I don't think Soy does that to you, but... None of this tracks.
None of this makes sense, even in a general directional sense.
None of it makes sense.
Because it assumes something about human behavior that's absurd.
What is the thing that you always say about why Marxism and Socialism doesn't work?
You know, sometimes we say it creates dictators, but the real reason is that it ignores human behavior.
Humans are very predictable.
If you say, you know what, if you work harder than your peers, you're not going to get anything extra, but you'll get to share what you made with everybody.
Will people work as hard as if you say, hey, you're going to be a superstar and you'll be better than everybody and you have more stuff if you work hard?
There's no question which one works.
The reason capitalism makes more stuff than socialism or communism is that it's just a better system.
But suddenly an entire hundred thousand years of consistent human behavior suddenly changed because of the World Economic Forum and climate change or something.
Now there isn't any chance There isn't any chance that there's anybody plotting to make you drink soy milk and eat bugs.
The people who want you to eat bugs, if they exist, are probably two types.
There's somebody in the bug eating business who wants to make money, so they're seeding the media with stories and they're trying to get it in.
So there's clearly a commercial factor here, obviously.
Nothing gets this much attention unless somebody's tried to make money off it.
The news doesn't just tell you what's interesting, they tell you what somebody who makes money wanted them to say.
That's how it works when it's about commerce.
Yeah, if you don't understand... And then on the other side, people like the World Economic Forum.
There are people who like to tell you the interesting thing that they heard that's in the news.
So some people like to talk about the potential of things to come.
Well, it doesn't mean they need it or want it, or it's the only thing that could happen, or they're going to force you to do it.
None of that.
Yeah.
So, one of the things that conservatives universally have as, I would say, a blind spot, is that people are not that coordinated.
To me, that's the big blind spot.
Now, there are definitely things that seem coordinated.
In other words, the deep state does seem to act like one big blob, but when you look at the deep state, are not their motivations the obvious ones that people have always had?
Obvious.
They want their side to win, they want good jobs and power, and it's all obvious.
So when you're looking at the blob or the deep state, and you've got a conspiracy theory about, hey, I think that Intel people are working with the media, and the media might be working with the Democrats, that's all observable.
It's not only directly observable, you know, proven in documents and You know, leaks and whistleblowers and everything.
So you've got tons of direct evidence, but it also completely fits the greed and selfishness model that explains all human activity forever.
But if you tell me there's somebody sitting in a room who wants you to eat bugs and drink soy milk, unless they're making money from bugs and soy milk, no.
No, that's not happening.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
But I do think climate is a scam.
All right, Gavin Newsom and DeSantis had a debate.
Hannity was the moderator.
I tried to watch it.
Let me tell you when I bailed out.
DeSantis says, hey, can you explain why everybody keeps moving out of California and moving to my state in Florida?
So therefore, I'm the winner, because the people are voting with their feet.
The people in your state, they're all, you know, it's the most U-Hauls they've ever used.
They're all coming to Florida.
And what does DeSantis say to that?
DeSantis?
I'm sorry, what does Newsom say?
Here's what Newsom says.
No, they're not.
They're moving from Florida to California.
That's when I turned it off.
Because I realized that it was the format that's the problem.
How many times have I told you, if somebody can win a debate by saying something absolutely fucking ridiculous, because half of the public doesn't have access to the news, they only have access to propaganda, DeSantis could lie all day long, and Republicans would think what they thought of him all along, it wouldn't change.
And Democrats would say, hey, that was pretty brave.
He went into the lion's den and, you know, you roughed up DeSantis.
Good job.
Newsom totally won.
Newsom totally won.
Did he say anything that was true?
Probably not.
Did DeSantis do a better job of, let's say, making arguments based on facts?
Probably.
Did that help him?
No.
Didn't make any difference.
It's the exact thing you'd expect, right?
Democrats say Newsom won.
Republicans, maybe they like DeSantis more.
But no, as long as DeSantis can just deny reality, and nobody knows the difference on his team, he wins.
He wins.
So Newsom won, hands down, simply by showing up and smiling and lying.
Doing his thing.
But what else did we learn about this?
DeSantis says that Gavin Newsom's own father-in-law fled from California to live in Florida.
Now, that's kind of a funny gotcha, but it doesn't win you any debates.
Because as a human being, you listen to that story and you say to yourself, okay, there could be a lot of reasons for that.
It's not like That's not exactly a kill shot.
It's fun.
It's fun.
You might remember it, but it's not really a kill shot.
And then I guess, you know, Newsom said his lockdowns were great and he saved lives.
And the trouble with the... And of course, nobody on the right believes that.
They think it's the opposite.
Everything he did killed people and ruined children and all that.
But debates are worthless.
This could not have been more worthless.
Because you never get to fact-check anything.
I've said it a million times.
Somebody's going to create a debate show in which the fact-checkers are part of the debate, and each team has their own, and the host has their own.
So that if a fact comes up, instead of this bullshit where you can just claim it's true and run out the clock, you stop.
You say, all right, there's a fact check.
And then they both show their sources.
And then maybe the moderator says, all right, I'm going to rule that neither of them are reliable, or it's a jump ball, so make your own decision at home, or one of these is just wrong.
Now, one of them just lied.
Now that's a debate.
I'd watch that all day long, even if it took longer.
Because you could do it live when it's a little slow, because it slows down with the false claims.
But then when you edit it together, you just fast forward the fact checking to get to the end of it.
And that would be great.
Imagine a fast forward through all the fact checking, but they always have to stop when there's a fact check.
That would be a debate.
That'd be fun.
All right, we have a moron here.
Moron.
Jason Ferris.
Claude, get your booster items!
So Jason fell for the 4chan hoax that reversed all of my opinions on the pandemic.
Jason, you should be very embarrassed about falling for that.
All right.
So here's some, oh, then DeSantis held up the so-called poop map of San Francisco.
So it's a map where there was an app where you could report if there was human feces on the sidewalk somewhere, so people could stay away.
But what happened was the entire map turned brown, because there were so many, so many reports of feces on sidewalks that you couldn't even use it, it was just brown.
Now, remember I said that persuasion is visual.
So DeSantis holds up, you know, the map.
So you can see this big pile of shit.
And he holds it up next to his face.
And that was his persuasion.
I know what he was going for.
Now, what he was aiming for was a good visual persuasion, a moment that people would remember That would really brand Newsom as a bad governor.
What it made instead was an association of Ron DeSantis and a giant pile of shit.
The visual persuasion doesn't live completely on its own.
You can't make the other mistakes.
You don't want to associate yourself with something that's disgusting.
So what I'll remember about that is Ron DeSantis, his big old head here, and a big old pile of shit right next to it.
That's what I'll remember.
I already knew that San Francisco had some problems.
So I learned nothing new from that.
So nothing changed because I know that San Francisco has problems.
But now in my head, I've got a pile of shit in DeSantis' head, and I can't unsee it.
Yeah.
That's visual persuasion done as wrong as you could do it.
But I asked myself, and you should ask yourself, if Trump had done this, would I feel differently?
Yes.
You know why?
Because for Trump it would be on brand.
Yeah, it would be on brand.
But Trump doesn't like to do gross stuff.
Right?
Trump has like a He's not even a big fan of shaking hands.
So I don't think he would hold up a big pile of human feces and say, hey, remember me?
Remember this pile of feces?
That would be opposite of Trump's personality.
I can't imagine him doing it.
But if he did, because it's Trump, it would seem funnier.
See, the problem is that DeSantis, if he does something that's out of brand, Because that was a little bit out of brand.
DeSantis is just the accountant who's not going to make a mistake.
He's going to tell you what he's going to do and then he's going to do it and you'll be pretty happy about it.
Like he's an operator.
He's good.
Probably one of the best governors of all time.
But if you're a showman and people say, OK, what is the guy who's bringing the show going to show me?
Well, you might look at it differently, but it would still be a mistake.
All right, you know all those January 6th depositions that the committee, the Congressional Committee, got?
And now the Republicans would like to get a copy of all the ones that we didn't see, because there were a lot of depositions that were not public.
And wouldn't you like to know, you know, whatever the committee knew?
Yeah.
They're all missing.
Every one of them.
Everyone in the deposition videos.
Not some of them.
Not some of them.
Every one of them is gone.
What should you assume about that?
Well, if this were a case about an individual American citizen, I'd say, well, that person is innocent until proven guilty.
That's our standard.
We should not change that.
But what happens when it's a government?
And the government does something that every single person who sees it says, well, that's a little sketchy and corrupt looking.
What should you assume?
You should assume guilt.
Yeah.
Doesn't mean it.
Doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
Could be a mistake.
But you should assume guilt.
Because that's the better system.
So I'm going to assume that the January 6th committee was as corrupt as they looked.
I mean it looked corrupt without even knowing this, but I would say this is confirmation of their corruption and I think the January 6th committee committed a worse crime than anybody did on January 6th.
I think the committee committed a far worse crime than even the people who did violence.
Even the people who did violence, I'm including them, were not nearly as bad as what the January 6th committee attempted to do.
Because the violence, as bad as it was, clearly a tragedy.
We have empathy for the victims.
I'm not making light of victims.
But they were individuals, and there weren't that many of them.
But when you corrupt the country, the entire system, as grossly as the January 6th Committee, even without the bloodshed, I've got to say it's worse.
If you found out that the Republic were overthrown tomorrow, you wouldn't say to yourself, well, nobody died.
You'd say, OK, that's worse.
Because down the road, it's going to be much worse.
So that's probably exactly what it looks like.
Kyle Becker, again, reporting on that.
Chris Cuomo went on the Patrick Ben David Show.
Do I have his name right?
Podcast.
And here's what he said.
This is Cuomo.
Chris Cuomo.
He said, as Patrick says, the data is the data.
Nobody was trying to kill us when Trump was president in a way that they're not now.
In a way that they're not now.
I think that's a typo.
If anything, there's more hostility.
So PBD says, so you're open to a Trump vote?
This is Chris Cuomo, who had been on CNN until he went to NewsNation.
And Cuomo says, I am always open.
And I'll tell you this, people say, oh, oh, bullshit.
You're never voting for a Republican in your life.
And Cuomo says, wrong.
And not only have I, the first vote I ever cast was for a Republican.
All right, let's do a test.
Do you believe that he's telling the truth, that he would consider, he's not saying you would vote for him, but that he would seriously consider voting for Trump?
You're very mixed.
I see lots of yeses and lots of nos.
I'm going to tell you the definitive answer to this.
Because, so Chris Cuomo was among the first, you can say the first, major news person who asked to talk to me after I got cancelled.
Now, it took him some convincing, so we had some extensive private conversations before I appeared.
And I'm not going to tell you my private conversations, but I will tell you with certainty, he means it.
With certainty.
Based on private conversations, with certainty, he means that he's open to it.
Now again, I want to be clear, I'm not saying that he's certainly voting for Trump, nothing like that.
I'm saying that he is absolutely open to the argument.
And again, if you didn't talk to him personally, you wouldn't have any sense of that, because you're only seeing the public version.
But keep in mind, What's the worst thing that happened to Chris Cuomo professionally?
And who did it to him?
It wasn't Republicans.
Getting cancelled on CNN was the worst thing that's ever happened to him.
And that was purely Democrats.
Right?
And do you know what I said when he was getting in trouble for helping his brother, the governor from New York?
I said, that's bullshit.
He can help his brother all day long.
I don't care if there's a conflict of interest.
Everybody knows.
That's the most obvious conflict of interest.
It couldn't be more transparent.
He couldn't be more honest about it.
He would have his brother on and do, you know, giant Q-tip jokes and shit.
Obviously.
Obviously he was going to help his brother.
And who would want him not to?
Who would want him not to?
Crazy.
Insane.
But now, imagine you went through that.
And I told him that I was one of his supporters on that.
Absolutely, that was just so wrong that they took him out for that.
So, when I tell you that you don't know exactly what his private thoughts are, because his CNN performance was more of a performance, but when he dealt with me, it was totally straight.
He asked tough questions, because he should.
And he listened completely to my answers.
He didn't talk over me.
I mean, no more than a normal interview.
And he was completely, completely a legitimate, honest agent on that issue.
And I think you're completely wrong.
In fact, I'm sure that with complete certainty, he is absolutely open to looking at both sides.
Absolutely.
By the way, that's called reciprocity.
What I just did.
But I'm telling you, He treated me fairly when almost nobody was.
So I'm defending him because I owe him.
So that's payback.
All right.
Ukraine is allegedly going on defense.
So the new orders are to dig in and defend rather than being on the offense.
So I would say that the cat is on the roof on this one in the sense that That doesn't look like they think they're going to gain any more territory.
So I think that when Putin says, I'm going to wait for the election in America before I do anything, I think Zelensky realizes that his best bet is to wait for the next election, because it's going to happen.
So I feel like all the signals are pretty obvious now.
That it is going to get negotiated.
It's going to look like something like where the current lines are.
I imagine it'll be right along those lines.
And there's no other way this is likely to go.
Yeah.
I hear the stories about Zelensky buying yachts and stuff, but I wouldn't necessarily believe those.
I don't disbelieve them.
But in the fog of war and knowing that Russia disinformation is really a thing.
I wouldn't believe anything about Zelensky getting rich.
I assume it's true.
If you ask me what I assume, I assume so.
But if you look at any specific report about buying two yachts and stuff like that, I think that's unlikely to be true.
Even if he's stealing, he's probably not buying yachts with it.
That's my guess.
Like it might be in a secret bank account or somewhere, but I don't see him buying a yacht that he can't use.
All right, Glenn Greenwald talking about MSNBC, who he says talked about Medhi Hassan.
Sorry, I can't say his name right.
But he was cancelled his show on MSNBC, along with two other pro-Palestinian hosts after October 7th.
But what's interesting is that it's a long time now.
So that's three weeks later after he got cancelled and he hasn't said a word in public.
That's kind of weird if you're a host of a major TV show.
But apparently no one was watching his show anyway.
It was like the lowest rated show on cable news I think.
It was just like invisible.
It was so lowly attended.
I think MSNBC made the right business decision, because keeping on there wasn't making them any money, but it could have lost them money, because they would have lost a lot of Jewish support.
But the real question is, and I think Glenn Greenwald is on this page, is why did he have to get cancelled?
Just because you hate everything he says?
And he's, you know, maybe some would say he's anti-Israel and pro, you know, too pro bad guys.
But doesn't he get to say that?
Don't we have a country where you get to say that?
And isn't that a point of view that there are enough Americans who want to hear?
That they ought to hear it?
No matter how Nazi-like it might sound to your ears, Do you not get to say that in America?
You don't get to say something that everybody hates?
Well, not everybody, obviously.
It's a good question.
I don't know where the line is.
Because on one hand, I don't want to hear what he has to say.
On the other hand, I know that's not how the standard works.
The standard is, For me to be able to say what I want to say, I have to let him say what he wants to say.
So I've got a little bit of agreement here with Glenn Greenwald that as much as I think he is a malign, bad force and his show was a disaster, I hope he didn't get cancelled just because people didn't want to hear what he had to say.
That would be the wrong reason.
If he wasn't making money and it was just too much problem for the company, then it's just a business decision.
But I hope it wasn't because of what he was saying.
And again, I'll remind you, I'm 100% behind Israel for its Gaza policies.
Anything that happened before October 7th, I don't care.
I'm just not involved in that.
So I don't care about their history.
I don't care who did what to October 7th.
I'm going to judge everything that happens in Gaza by October 7th.
That's my stand.
All right.
Israel has put out some fighting maps, some maps that show Gaza in a grid with numbered numbers on each of the boxes.
And I guess they're dropping pamphlets now because the ceasefire didn't work.
The ceasefire is over.
Well, the ceasefire did work because they exchanged prisoners.
But there's still some to go.
And the claim is that Hamas is not doing everything they said they do.
So Israel is going to go back to the attack.
Now, that could also be a bluff.
So it could be that Israel is doing everything that looks like they're going on an aggressive attack to get Hamas to fold on the last few things about the prisoners.
Maybe.
Or maybe it's a win either way.
Getting ready to fight because they need to?
Well, you just need to do that.
But if it had the effect of causing the hostages to come back, well, That's good too.
So it makes sense what they're doing and it makes sense that they would have this grid.
But remember I told you visual persuasion is the strongest.
When you actually see the map and you see this lots of you know lots of boxes and you see that they're going to drop the people in advance.
Hey we're going into this box.
If you're a civilian get out of this box.
But the box is not so big that they don't know how to get out of it.
In other words, it's all walking distance.
If you said you have to get out of northern Gaza, well, that's too far to go.
Like, to do what?
How do you get out of the north?
The north is just too big.
Getting out is no easy thing.
But if you make it small enough boxes, everybody can walk to the next box until the bombing stops in that box.
Now, I don't know how this is going to work.
Because wouldn't Hamas get out of the box too?
So we'll see what happens.
It could be either the best idea or the worst idea.
But here's what's important.
From a persuasion public relations standpoint, when I heard Israel say, hey, innocents can leave, I said to myself, OK, I back Israel.
You know, I'm on their side.
But can they really leave?
Can you really walk from northern Gaza to southern Gaza in a war zone?
To me, that didn't look like they could really leave.
Did you have the same feeling?
It's like, yeah, I get, in principle, you say they can leave, but in a practical sense, there's no way.
It's just not, there's no way.
So now they have a new visual representation of the area.
So you can just look at it and you could look at it and say, oh yeah, that would work.
Like, your brain instantly says, well, I could walk from that box to that box and wait for a day.
I could do that.
Jason, you're such a bad troll.
Like, you're not even making a dent.
Are you drunk already, Jason?
You act like you're drunk.
By the way, the number of times you can make somebody go away by asking if they're drunk You should see how often that works.
It's crazy.
So Drunk and Jason, we'll see if he comes back.
He got real quiet when I asked him if he's drunk.
Because you're probably drunk, aren't you?
Yeah.
I know it's the morning, but I'll bet you're drunk.
All right.
So the fighting maps are good for him.
University of California has got some conflict.
150 professors are condemning the school's president, the University of California's president's viewpoint because he wants to make some changes and he wants the teachers, professors to have more neutral opinions on things like climate change and Middle East atrocities.
And people are saying, um, how could we have a neutral opinion on atrocities?
You know, but of course he doesn't mean that.
He means that the whole context that includes the atrocities.
Now, is it a good idea for educators to try to be objective and not insert their opinion into politics and the news?
Well, like your common sense says, yes, that's a good idea.
You don't want these teachers propagandizing people.
But here's the second question.
Is it possible?
No.
No, it's not possible.
You can't not inject opinion into world events.
That's not a thing.
Because just the word choice and what you leave out and what you emphasize, your opinion will always be in it.
So it's impossible.
So the suggestion is to do something that's literally impossible.
And people are complaining.
So I don't know.
I think it's just more of a sign that the higher levels of education don't know how to educate because they don't know if they should give an opinion.
Or they should not give an opinion, and it would completely change what you were taught.
If you can't figure that part out.
So, I side with the news people who say that all news is opinion.
And that includes Ida Bay Wells, who's the, what was it, the 16-whatever project?
So, yeah, the 1619 author.
She said that news people have to be opinionated and biased.
Not biased, but opinionated.
Because that's the only reasonable thing.
I would argue that that's always been true.
Oh, George Santos has been expelled.
Breaking news.
George Santos has been expelled?
Is that a real thing?
Well, we'll find out about that.
Yeah, I don't think that it's realistic to expect people to not put their opinion in their teaching.
Because how could you do that?
I mean, seriously, how could you do that?
But as a standard, it might make sense to get as close to it as you can.
So I don't hate that.
But the question was, how do they teach climate change?
Imagine you thought that climate change was an existential threat.
You're a professor and you really believe it.
And maybe it's true.
I don't know what's true, but maybe it is.
How could you possibly allow the critics to get equal voice in that conversation if you thought one would kill the world and the other would save the world?
And you're going to ask your professor to be unbiased about that?
How?
Because here's the problem.
If you're unbiased about it, the skeptics win.
Sorry.
The skeptics just have a stronger argument.
Doesn't mean they're right.
Doesn't mean they're right.
I mean that if you had an honest debate with the skeptics and the pro-climate alarm people, I believe the skeptics would win 100% of the time if you had the right skeptics, right?
Not all of them.
Some of them are frauds.
And it's not because, and I want to be clear about this, it's not because I know That climate change is or is not real.
I don't have magic abilities.
What I know is that the argument will sound more persuasive.
Because when you say, when I say, for example, do you really think the scientists can measure the temperature of the planet?
And that they're accurate within, you know, half a degree or something?
Which you would have to be.
People just laugh at that.
They go, well, you know, if you've ever worked in a big company, And you know how much bullshit big companies tell their public and tell the customers?
You know that's not a thing.
You know that's not a thing.
Every part of your common sense tells you, no, they didn't put thermometers around the world and then track it for a hundred years and they were accurate to a half a percent.
Right?
If you put me on that debate, I would slaughter a scientist who knew a hundred times more than me.
Because what's the scientist going to say?
The scientist is going to say, but, but, but, here's my detailed scientific study that's peer-reviewed.
And I'll say, what percentage of peer-reviewed things are true?
Well, you know, that's our process.
I know, but what percentage are true?
Well, you know, it's the best process.
I know.
But what percentage of peer-reviewed studies turn out to be true in the long run?
Just give me a number.
Well, most of the time, is it?
Because I've got a study that says it's 50% of the time.
Half.
Now you tell me this, if you took a bunch of scientists and you said, if you say A is true, you could be happy and live a happy life.
If you say B is true, you will be destroyed.
Is that science?
In other words, the critic argument is just super easy to understand and strong.
The argument that we're in trouble and we're all going to die might be right.
I don't know.
It's too complicated for me to understand.
But too complicated, and the only people who understand it are making money from it, compared to you haven't been right for 40 years, Half of science is made up, and you're all paid to say it's real.
Who wins that debate?
And by the way, they convinced you that they could put thermometers around the Earth and tell you the average temperature of the Earth within half a degree.
You put me on that panel, I would destroy climate change in one hour.
As an alarm narrative.
But I might be wrong.
That's the funny thing.
I'm not telling you I'm so right that my argument would win.
It's not because it's right.
It's because it's a common sense, observable set of arguments.
Common sense and observable.
The other is, well, I can't even tell what that science is saying.
And aren't you paid to say it's real?
Yeah.
Somebody says you're right, you're wrong.
Henry Cruz says, I might be.
I might be wrong.
That's not one I would bet my life on.
Well, credit to Barry Weiss, who, sort of an independent journalist type, broke some big stories.
So she's got a new startup called The Free Press.
And apparently, especially during this Hamas-Gaza situation, she seems to be getting tons of attention for not being A biased source of news I guess.
So good for her.
I just want to give her a shout out that I think Barry Weiss has been one of the most useful citizens in the United States over the past few years by being aggressively dedicated to what's real and being unwilling to play along with what's not real.
All credit to her, and apparently the free press is being quoted by notable people and getting a lot of attention, and I'd like her to get a little bit of extra attention.
Because when you do work that good, maybe good things should come to you.
All right.
Nature self-regulates.
It does not go into cascade failure.
Yeah, so the climate alarmists I have an argument that, oh yeah, maybe you can't see what's going wrong, but when it reaches this breaking point, you know, that's where everything will fall apart.
I have no confidence that our scientists can look at the complexity of all the systems, you know, around our globe, and they can tell us that there's an upcoming fall off a cliff point.
There might be, but how would you predict that?
That would be the hardest thing you could possibly predict in an environment where they can't predict anything.
And I want to say this.
Prediction is truth, right?
If you predicted, you know, accurately in the past, you'd probably have something like truth.
But if you can't predict, you can't.
Now the history of climate is they've predicted terrible, but if you ask them, they'd say, no, our models are right on.
Oh yeah, maybe 30 years ago we had some crazy ideas, but those guys are all dead.
Current batch of scientists finally got it right.
We got all these models.
If you haven't heard me explain why the models are BS, allow me to do it this way.
Nobody can predict the future.
You can't do it with math.
Nobody can predict the future.
That's not a thing.
It's also not what prediction models are for.
Models are not for predicting the future.
That's not even the point of them.
Do you know what they're for?
They're for to tell you what the cone of possibility is.
From the worst case to the best case.
But where it is within that cone, nobody can predict that.
So that's the first thing.
It's way too complicated, too many variables, nobody can predict it.
But in general, in general that's true of a lot of things.
Now that's also why I'm suspicious of the large language model AI.
If the large language model was built to predict what the next word in a sequence would be, and that's how it pretends to be intelligent, how come it can't do it when I ask it to do it?
Try going to your large language model and give it half a sentence and see if it can accurately complete the sentence.
Because that's what it's built to do, right?
It's built to do literally that.
Complete the sentence.
Try it.
Give it half a sentence and see if it can complete the sentence with what you had in your mind.
Not that it can complete it.
Obviously it can complete it.
But can it complete it with what you had in mind?
Because if it can, then it's doing what they say.
It knows that you're likely to say this.
Now you'd have to repeat the thing to make sure that it's repeatable.
But if it can't fill in the sentence that you give it as just a test, is that how it's thinking?
The only time it can't do it is when you give it the first part of the sentence?
But it can do it otherwise?
Here's what I think.
I think the reason it can't complete your sentence is because it can't predict the future.
And if it could complete your sentence, it could.
It could.
It could predict the future.
And it's not a thing.
Now, I'm not sure that's a good point.
I haven't thought it through.
But I just don't understand why it can't complete my sentence if that's the entire basis for its intelligence is completing sentences.
It's a little mystery to me.
So I would say that anytime anybody tells you they have a secret process that you don't fully understand that can predict the future, They do not have a secret process that you don't understand that can predict the future.
Because nobody's done it yet.
I haven't done it with the stock market.
I haven't done it with anything.
It's just not a thing in complex systems.
Now somebody said, but Scott, NASA predicted enough to send a ship to the moon and back.
And that's a lot of predicting.
To which I say, it's a lot of predicting with very few variables in physics.
You know, you've got your gravity and your, you know, basically things that we have formulas for that never fail, basically.
So, that makes sense.
Because even though your mind says that going to space is complicated, it's not complicated in terms of the rules of physics.
Would you buy that?
It's not complicated in terms of physics.
Right?
Whereas the weather is insanely complicated in ways we can't even know what the variables are exactly.
Yeah, very different.
It's not complicated, just difficult.
That is correct.
All right.
So that's what we know.
Ladies and gentlemen, are there any stories I left out?
I think I've gotten it all.
We'll catch up with the George Santos story in a little bit.
But remember, get your visual persuasion right and your whole life will be better.
It's a big, big deal.
What? - What?
Henry Cruz is making up some news.
Argentina, is there some news there?
Sandra Day O'Connor has passed away.
Troops in Vegas.
Dr. Funk Juice is asking me next time, the other story about the troops in Vegas.
I saw your DM and I'm missing the context.
I didn't understand the context.
So there's some troops in In Las Vegas?
For what?
I don't know.
Are there federal troops?
We talked about Peter Zan.
He quit X. I'm the guy who pointed you toward Robert Zephyr.
You called him racist.
No, I didn't.
I didn't call him a racist.
You know, there really needs to be a filter for the all-caps.
If YouTube could add the filter to just stop the all-caps people, you would almost see no trolls at all.
Because trolls don't know how to use anything but all-caps.
It's like they don't know how to turn that ability off.
Let's see.
YouTube will not replace this.
Yeah, no I didn't.
Your all caps continue to reveal you as the troll that you are.
